The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning Dyson Technology Limited's appeal against Dreame International and Eurep GmbH. Dyson claims that Dreame's products infringe on its European Patent No. EP 3 119 235, which pertains to a hair care appliance. Dyson requested provisional measures to prevent Dreame from infringing within the UPC territory and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division partially granted Dyson's request, identifying probable infringement for old products but not new ones. Both parties appealed. The Appeals Court decided to stay parts of the case and referred European law interpretation questions to the CJEU while issuing a provisional order for Dyson on other parts, extending injunctions to new Dreame products.
UPC Publication Date:03/06/2026
Summarized:03/07/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.1
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Dyson Technology Limited v. v. v. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
Winning Party:Dyson Technology Limited
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 119 235
Patent Title:Handheld Device for Hair Care
Grounds for decision:Jurisdiction issues under Regulation 1215/2012Infringement likelihood of old Dreame products
In this case, Dyson Technology Limited appealed a decision by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction related to patent infringement. Dyson holds European Patent 3 119 235 for a handheld hair care device and claimed that Dreame International and affiliates infringed this patent with their products. The Court of First Instance issued an injunction, finding the Old Dreame Products likely infringed the patent, but not the New Dreame Products. Dyson sought to extend the injunction to cover these new products, while Dreame sought to have the injunction removed completely. The Court of Appeal decided on procedural issues, including partially staying the appeal proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:03/06/2026
Summarized:03/07/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.1
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Dyson Technology Limited v. v. v. Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Winning Party:Dyson
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 119 235
Patent Title:Handheld Hair Care Device
Grounds for decision:Claim ConstructionRisk of Further Infringement
In this appeal case before the Unified Patent Court, Dyson sought provisional measures against Dreame International and Eurep for allegedly infringing its European Patent EP 3 119 235 related to hair care appliances, specifically targeting the sale and distribution of Dreame's hairdryer products in the UPC Territory and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division initially granted a preliminary injunction against certain Dreame products but denied it for others, prompting both parties to appeal the decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed parts of the Dreame appeal, granting Dyson's request for measures against some newer Dreame products in the UPC Territory, excluding Spain. The Court also stayed proceedings related to actions in Spain and referred questions regarding jurisdiction and interpretation of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
UPC Publication Date:03/06/2026
Summarized:03/07/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.1
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH v. v. v. Dyson Technology Limited
Winning Party:Dyson
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 119 235
Patent Title:Handheld device, in particular a hair care appliance
Grounds for decision:JurisdictionInfringement of patentInterpretation of EU law
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court considered Dyson's application for provisional measures against Dreame regarding a patent for a hair care appliance. Dyson holds European Patent 3 119 235 for a hair treatment device ("Dyson Airwrap"). Dreame was accused of infringing on the patent with their "Dreame Airstyle" and "Dreame Pocket" products. A preliminary injunction was granted by the Hamburg Local Division against Dreame for the Old Dreame Products, but not for the New Dreame Products. Dyson appealed, seeking to extend the injunction to the New Dreame Products, while Dreame and Eurep appealed the entire injunction order, requesting it to be set aside.
UPC Publication Date:03/06/2026
Summarized:03/07/2026
Type:Appeal RoP220.1
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v. v. v. Dyson Technology Limited
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 119 235
Patent Title:Handheld device, in particular a hair care appliance
Grounds for decision:Claim ConstructionRisk of Further Infringement
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (Defendant) appealed a decision by the Local Division the Hague which found it had infringed HL Display AB's (Claimant) patent, EP 2 432 351. The decision issued an injunction and corrective measures against Black Sheep, while dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep later withdrew its appeal following a stay in proceedings for settlement discussions. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, ordering a 50% reimbursement of the appeal Court fees to Black Sheep, consistent with updated procedural rules.
UPC Publication Date:03/06/2026
Summarized:03/07/2026
Type:Application Rop 265
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v. v. v. HL Display AB
Winning Party:HL Display
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 432 351
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:InfringementInadmissibility of counterclaim for non-infringementWithdrawal of appeal and settlement discussions
In this legal decision, Hurom Co., Ltd. (Hurom) sought permission from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to further exchange written pleadings before an upcoming oral hearing. Hurom initially appealed against a decision by the Paris Local Division, which dismissed its infringement claims and found parts of its patent invalid based on lack of inventive step. NUC Electronics and its affiliated companies (collectively 'NUC') contested this appeal, presenting new prior art to challenge the auxiliary requests Hurom added post-appeal.
UPC Publication Date:03/04/2026
Summarized:03/06/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Hurom Co., Ltd. v. v. v. NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
Winning Party:NUC Electronics
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 155 936
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Efficiency of proceedingsPrinciple of equality of armsPrinciples of fairness and due process
This legal decision involves a dispute between Advanced Brain Monitoring (ABM) and Philips regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 437 696 B2, a patent related to a wearable position therapy device designed to treat sleep disorders. ABM, the patent holder, accuses Philips of infringing this patent with their NightBalance device. Philips counters, arguing non-infringement, challenging the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step over prior art, specifically referencing JP H03-49748 A. Additionally, Philips contends that the patent suffers from unpermitted added matter and insufficiency of disclosure. A counterclaim for patent revocation is filed by Philips. The decision discusses interim applications, procedural issues, and amendments to claims, but no settlement was reached between the parties.
UPC Publication Date:03/03/2026
Summarized:03/04/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v. v. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP2437696B2
Patent Title:Systems and methods for controlling position
Grounds for decision:Patent infringementLack of noveltyInventive stepSufficiency of disclosure
RemediesProhibition of infringementDestruction of infringing productsDamagesLegal costs
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order permitting Washtower to withdraw their application for provisional measures against Bega. This follows Washtower's agreement to bear the legal costs and compensate any injury caused by the provisional measures. The court declared the proceedings closed and set the value in dispute at €530,000. Washtower had initially sought provisional measures to prevent the infringement of patent EP 3 522 755, but later agreed to withdrawal and settled on compensating Bega. The decision reflects agreements between the parties, including cost responsibilities and compensation.
UPC Publication Date:03/03/2026
Summarized:03/04/2026
Type:Application Rop 265
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v. v. v. Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
Winning Party:Bega
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 522 755
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Withdrawal permitted under R. 265 RoP due to absence of final decisionCost allocation and compensation agreed upon by partiesValue in dispute calculated based on Guidelines
RemediesCompensation for provisional measuresCost of proceedings
The Unified Patent Court in Mannheim issued a procedural order requiring Defendant 1, SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., to pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim in a patent infringement case initiated by Irdeto B.V. against multiple defendants. While Defendants 2 to 4 jointly submitted an earlier counterclaim and paid one fee, Defendant 1 submitted a separate counterclaim later and attempted to rely on the fee paid by the other defendants. The court ruled that Rule 370.7 RoP, which allows for one fee for actions involving multiple parties, does not apply to separate actions by different parties, even if they contain the same content. Defendant 1 was ordered to pay the fee within 14 days or face a decision by default. The decision clarifies the application of court fee rules in cases with multiple defendants submitting similar but separate counterclaims.
UPC Publication Date:02/27/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Parties:Irdeto B.V. v. v. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
Winning Party:Irdeto B.V.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 831 787
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Rule 370.7 RoP does not apply to separate counterclaims by different parties
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on February 27, 2026, concerning a request by Sibio Technology Limited for further exchanges of written pleadings. Sibio had previously filed a revocation action against Abbott Diabetes Care regarding European patent EP 3 831 283 B1, which was dismissed by the Central Division of Paris. Following an appeal, Sibio requested further written exchanges based on Abbott's auxiliary requests to uphold the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected this request, noting that the auxiliary requests had already been addressed at the first instance and that Sibio had ample opportunity to respond. The proceedings will now move to the oral phase.
UPC Publication Date:02/27/2026
Summarized:03/02/2026
Type:Generic Order
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Sibio Technology Limited v. v. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Winning Party:Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 831 283
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Previous addressing of auxiliary requests at first instanceOpportunity for Sibio to respond at oral hearingNo new amendments to auxiliary requests by Abbott
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order dismissing EOFlow Co., Ltd.'s request for discretionary review regarding penalty payments for infringing Insulet Corporation's patent (EP 4 201 327). EOFlow, a South Korean manufacturer, had breached a preliminary injunction related to its insulin pumps, leading to a penalty of EUR 150,000. EOFlow also appealed the denial of its confidentiality requests but was unsuccessful. The court emphasized that EOFlow had not adhered to the procedural requirement of requesting a leave to appeal within 15 days. Consequently, both EOFlow's main and auxiliary requests were deemed inadmissible. The appeal against the dismissal of a separate Rule 262.2 request remains pending.
UPC Publication Date:02/26/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:EOFlow Co., Ltd. v. v. v. Insulet Corporation
Winning Party:Insulet Corporation
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 4 201 327
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Failure to request leave to appeal within 15 daysNon-compliance with preliminary injunctionMisinterpretation of procedural rules by EOFlow
This preliminary procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court involves the patent dispute concerning European Patent No. EP 3 001 984 B1. The applicant, Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, is represented by multiple directors and lawyers, while the defendants are BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc., both represented legally in Germany.
UPC Publication Date:02/25/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Application for provisional measures
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v. v. v. BrainPortfolio Inc
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 001 984 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:R. 209.1 (b) VerfO – Summons to Oral Hearing
In a decision dated February 24, 2026, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed procedural matters in the ongoing patent dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) and several branches of Moderna, collectively referred to as Moderna. GSK sought to update their patent infringement claim to include a new Moderna product, mNEXSPIKE, which they assert infringes on the same grounds as other products previously mentioned. Moderna objected, citing prior public knowledge of the product. Additionally, GSK filed numerous conditional amendments to their patents, which Moderna criticized for being excessive and poorly structured. Furthermore, Moderna requested the exclusion of certain late submissions and expert opinions by GSK, which GSK defended as essential responses to Moderna's claims and strategies.
UPC Publication Date:02/25/2026
Summarized:03/04/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. v. v. Moderna et al.
Winning Party:GSK
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP4066856 and EP4226941
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Admissibility of claim amendmentNeed for comprehensive claim scopeResponse to new product approvals
This case involves a procedural decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court regarding a patent dispute between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and a conglomerate of Pfizer and BioNTech entities (PBNT). The dispute centers on patent EP2590626, which is held by GSK. PBNT requested the court to limit GSK's auxiliary requests (ARs) to ten, claiming that the current number of 42 ARs is excessive and asking for an extension to file their responses. GSK defended its position, arguing that the number of ARs is justified by the complexity of the case and associated invalidity attacks. The court ordered GSK to provide a detailed table of its ARs, while denying PBNT's request to limit the ARs. The court also considered, but did not completely grant, PBNT's request for an extension, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings under the UPC framework.
UPC Publication Date:02/25/2026
Summarized:03/04/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:The Hague (NL) Local Division
Parties:GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. v. v. Pfizer et al.
Winning Party:GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP2590626
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Need for procedural efficiency and detailed submission of ARsUPC's goal for expeditious proceedingsLack of specific late-filed argument examples
In this case, TCL Europe SAS (Claimant) filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated (Defendant) regarding European Patent EP 3 296 274, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses.' The case was heard by the Central Division (Section Munich) of the UPC. TCL argued that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, and adequate disclosure, among other points. TCL sought to revoke the patent entirely in France and Germany and have Corning pay legal costs. Conversely, Corning sought dismissal of the action and maintenance of the patent.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Revocation Action
Court:Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Parties:TCL EUROPE SAS v. v. v. Corning Incorporated
Winning Party:Corning Incorporated
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:3 296 274
Patent Title:Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses
Grounds for decision:NoveltyInventive stepSufficient disclosure
This legal decision issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court involves the amendment of a confidentiality order regarding documents exchanged in a patent lawsuit between UERAN Technology LLC and multiple Xiaomi entities. The decision addresses an application by Xiaomi to amend a prior order classifying certain documents as confidential. Xiaomi argued that their patent negotiations and agreements needed restricted access. They objected to giving Claimant's patent attorneys access, arguing it was unnecessary for the case's proceedings. The court, however, noted that according to the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), parties have the right to choose their representatives, and those representatives can be patent attorneys or lawyers. Ultimately, the court allowed some of Xiaomi's amendments but denied the exclusion of the Claimant's patent attorneys from access, affirming their role in representation as covered by the UPCA.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:UERAN Technology LLC v. v. v. Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
Winning Party:UERAN Technology LLC
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2661133
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Right to Chose Representation under Art. 48 UPCAConfidentiality in Legal Proceedings
This case involves TRUMPF Laser UK Limited (plaintiff) accusing IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (defendant) of violating European Patent EP 2 951 625 related to an optical device for combining laser light. The plaintiff claims direct literal and equivalent infringement by the defendant, specifically targeting IPG's fiber lasers, known as the 'YLS-AMB' series, marketed across various European countries. The patent in question focuses on a specific configuration of optical fibers and laser outputs designed to manage the beam profile of laser outputs.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Infringement Action
Court:Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Parties:TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v. v. v. IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Winning Party:TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 951 625
Patent Title:Optical Apparatus for Combining Laser Light
Grounds for decision:Patent InfringementPatent Invalidity
In this case, UPM-Kymmene Oyj (the Claimant) sought the revocation of European Patent EP 2 611 800, held by International N&H Denmark ApS (formerly Virdia Inc.), on the grounds that the patent extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed and lacks novelty and an inventive step under the EPC. The patent relates to methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures. The Claimant argued that the claims in the patent did not adequately define the subject matter, particularly in terms of numerical ranges, and lacked a necessary inventive step. The Defendant sought to maintain the patent, either as granted or through auxiliary requests for amendments. Ultimately, the Court sided with UPM-Kymmene Oyj, revoking the patent entirely, and ruled that the Defendant should bear all legal costs.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Revocation Action
Court:Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Parties:UPM Kymmene Oyj v. v. v. International N&H Denmark ApS
Winning Party:UPM-Kymmene Oyj
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:2 611 800
Patent Title:Methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions
Grounds for decision:Claims extend beyond original applicationLack of noveltyLack of inventive step
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on public access to documents held by the Registry, clarifying that requests must be directed to the appropriate division depending on where the documents were lodged. In Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH vs. Zentiva Portugal, LDA., Boehringer contested Gowling WLG's request for access to appeal documents. Boehringer argued for redaction due to sensitive information, while Zentiva resisted on grounds of ongoing main proceedings and confidentiality risks. The decision highlighted procedural rules requiring judge-rapporteur consultation and emphasized the balance of public interest against the integrity and confidentiality of ongoing matters.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Application RoP262.1 (b)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Gowling WLG (applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. v. v. Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 1 830 843
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Public access to registry documentsConfidentiality and integrity of ongoing proceedingsSpecificity and reasoned requests requirement
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision on public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Requests for document access must be made to the appropriate division, i.e., the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal. The decision-making process involves the judge-rapporteur consulting the parties, ensuring familiarity with the case file. Access requests should specify the documents needed and justify their relevance, avoiding broad criteria that require the court to search based on the requester’s criteria. The case involved Gowling WLG seeking access to documents for professional reasons, even though the proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) had ended. Sumi Agro opposed access to documents containing confidential information. Syngenta requested personal data redaction. The decision emphasized balancing public access against confidentiality and the need for reasoned requests.
UPC Publication Date:02/24/2026
Summarized:02/27/2026
Type:Application RoP262.1 (b)
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Gowling WLG (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v. v. v. Syngenta Limited
Winning Party:Syngenta Limited
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 152 073
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Public access to registerConfidentiality balancingReasoned request requirement